Glad for Libya's sake. My Libyan friends have been very excited, even though they'd been beginning to lose hope not so long ago.
Shame to start a new era with murder, of course. Let's hope it ends there. One important and symbolic murder per era. Giving people what they deserve, whichever way you look at it, isn't really characteristic of a modern civilisation
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Found out earlier today that this imbecile was killedmy friend (who told me) was eager to show me the video of his lynching but I couldn't watch that.
Best-quality video yet of him just after capture. Doesn't contain any real violence, but clearly the guy is duly terrified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dy1dsO-jKd0
Am I the only one who feels discomfort watching these clips?
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
You're not, it's not like it's a comfortable thing. But I don't feel much discomfort given who he was. Beyond being a repressive, weird and terrifying dictator, he exported more terrorism to the West than anyone besides maybe Bin Laden.
No, I don't feel very uneasy about the untidiness of the death of an old evil man who gave orders to kill hundreds of people some of whom had comitted no bigger crime than boarding an American airplane.Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
Want to experience real discomfort? Try find a clip of one of his female henchmen hanging on the legs of one of his opponents who had the audacity of not dying fast enough when hanged by the neck.
edit: never mind.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
He is buried, so this will fall off of American news in short time. Heard death was ruled as a result from gunshot to the head (possibly from his own gun).
Another video floating around, showing that as he is being dragged around he is being sodomized with a knife. Is there really a justification for humans to act like that?
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 10-25-2011 at 02:02 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Define justification. If you mean a way to make it palatable from the perspective of your comfortable Florida homebody sensibilities, then no probably not.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So, let's say somebody rapes one of your children and we put you in a room with this person with a gun in your hands. There is no doubt this guy is guilty, he was caught in the act.
Any chances your definition of 'justification' for extreme violence is somewhat different than when you wrote the post above?
Last edited by Hazir; 10-25-2011 at 07:26 PM.
I like to think I'm a pretty decent and moral acting person. I like to think that I would be better than that. Sure you could argue that there aren't bad people, but situations that bring out the worst in people. But this man was defenseless, captured; was fucking him in the ass with a knife going to make anything better? Did it possibly make someone feel better for a few minutes? Maybe, but you could say the same thing for parents and beating their children. This man did horrible things, but when does someone step up and say, "you know what, enough of acting like that."
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The catching of a dictator of 42 years bloody rule, in a city shot to shreds, immediately after a firefight. That sure as hell changes parameters for the treatment of a person.
You should be surprised that what happened to him was the only thing that happened before they put a bullet in his head, it sure as hell wasn't full payback for what he had inflicted on those people.
*generic vengeance = bad response
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Which was exactly not what I was talking about.
payback is vengeance, perhaps you would like to correct your word choice.
Unless I threw you off with the *. That line is a filler for my response, not a paraphasing of your own.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
No, what I meant is that he deserved an end a lot worse than what he got. Besides that I pointed out that you can't judge the level of violence he encountered just before his death by the standards of - as LF calls it - your chair in Florida and given the actual situation .. dictatorship, war coming out of an actual fire fight minutes before, it was rather subdued with some people actually trying to keep the bastard alive.
I don't often find myself agreeing with OG, but I think I do in this case. Obviously I can't fault those who tortured/killed him; I am not in that situation and it's hard to imagine being in such a situation. Yet in general we should hope that societies punish wrongdoers through a fair and dispassionate legal system, rather than by mob violence. There's no doubt he would have been convicted, and I have no qualms about them executing him. But an execution differs from a lynching in that the former is the measured application of violence by the state, while the latter is a spontaneous decision by a group of people. In principle, I think we would all agree that it's ideal to work through appropriate channels.
To me, it's not a question of what he 'deserved' or didn't deserve. It's a question of how we would like our societies to work. Summary mob justice should not be our ideal, and should be regretted when it is carried out - even if the end result may be the same either way.
Ok, and how do we so easily assume that 'our society works that way' ? For the simple reason that we can draw upon a couple of centuries that our societies have worked that way. For that reason Europe could leave WWII behind it relatively easily. You'd have to go back very very far to find a period in Libyan history where they had something that resembled state with a rule of law as we would understand it. I think it is a bloody miracle already that there were some people in that crowd who didn't want to join in with the crowd ripping him apart. Who actually said that he should be kept alive so he could be tried. I think those people made the incredible leap of faith that justice could be possible in their miserable land.
And really, a dead Ghadaffi was in pretty much everybodies interest; the sooner he was killed the sooner the old regime could be finished of so that Libya can start building a future for itself than be fighting its past.
I don't disagree that Libyan society doesn't work that way; doesn't mean we shouldn't wish it did.
I also didn't approve of the Iraqis broadcasting Saddam's hanging on international television (though I do approve of their going through a legal process to execute him). I understand, but I don't like it.
Hope is the denial of reality
And to think that this imbecile was "welcomed back into the international community" by Rice. He should have been done away with from the start, along with any other animal from that part of the world who supports terrorism.
There is a proverb in dutch that roughly translates 'You can't bake cookies from wishes', and that suits the situation we just witnessed in Libya. Of course things would be a lot better if Libya were a democracy under the rule of law with freedom and happiness for everybody. But it is utterly ridiculous to hold Libya to that standard rather than the standard of countries coming out of an extremely revolution. As those things go, Ghadaffi got off easy.
The English equivalent might be "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
Regardless, I think we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm not blaming anyone for what happened to Gaddafi, but it's still not objectively right. I can understand and sympathize with the reality of the situation while still wishing that the world weren't like that. My objection to earlier posts was the implication that the behavior we witnessed was justified. It's understandable, but hardly a paragon of just behavior.
But there is a huge difference, I don't believe 'our right' applies in such an extreme situation. Our right is possible only on the premise that extreme violence is rare in a society, where there is a state which equitably uses the force it has the monopoly of. Libya is not such a society, and should not have to answer - at this moment - to our sensitivities in that field.
I believe in an objective, and not subjective, set of rules. Clearly you disagree. *shrugs*
It's nice believing in things, but not particularly rational if no one but you follows those beliefs.
Hope is the denial of reality
No one else believe that there are universal, objective rules of how people should be treated?
I don't believe that these rules exists in a situation where society has broken down.
And by universal, you mean the ones you know?
You are aware that there are cultural differences across the world, and all rules are based on culture?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I believe they aren't respected or enforced when society breaks down, but they still exist.
Of course there are regional differences. And not every socially accepted rule is universally applicable (say, there are rules about tipping cab drivers, or appropriate tax structures, or holding a door for a lady). But I believe that there are universally applicable rules: things like no murdering, no theft, etc. Do you honestly expect me to agree that basic rules like that are dependent on culture? If a culture accepts some of this behavior, they're wrong.
I'm flabbergasted at the response I'm getting.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote